Word Association (2024)

[Amethyst]

Several off-topic diversion posts have been removed for contravening the forum's community standards.

 

Please stay reasonably on-topic for the subject of this thread, which is:  New COVID Variant 'HV.1' has rapidly overtaken the #1 spot of previous mutations in the U.S.

 

 

 

[thaicurious]

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Okay, I adapted my statement:

The current jab is 'expected' / 'may' / 'should' reduce your symptoms leading to hospitalization and death, when catching covid.

But of course the large majority of the population still believes the earlier 24/7 propaganda that the jabs will 'protect you from catching covid'.

 

 

It is not improper for a news article to report on what experts expect based on what is known about the vaccine and about the new mutation. The word "expected" is said based upon the science, indicating that given these sets of circumstances of what the new mutation is and how the vaccine was designed, even if the new mutation is not exactly addressed within the design specs, it's close enough that the vaccine should be near enough as effective as it would have been against the prior mutation for which it was designed such that it will similarly decrease hospitalizations and deaths. It is not said as a wild guess. So I hope that helps to allay your fears about that.

 

That a large majority of population believes something wrong might not surprise me but you ought to show those statistics if they exist to prove your statement if you can. If there is such a misunderstanding, that might be by bad communication on the part of science. Though I just googled "do people think covid vaccine prevents getting covid?" and the entries I see don't say they prevent from getting covid. They properly mention reductions of hospitalization and death instead.

 

Perhaps some people think vaccinations "protect you from catching covid" because people like you misinform that there's supposedly been 24/7 propaganda of a lie at some earlier point when the fact is that before the omicron mutation which evades immunity, the original vaccinations did indeed have a high efficacy rate against getting infected at all. That was not propaganda. It was true at the time for that situation. I get that you are put into a state of panic when things change. You go into a high level of fear and so you are unable to cope well. But here, the science that vax conferred a high efficacy against getting covid before omicron (it was in the 90s % if I remember right) was true then. And so that's what they told people, the truth as it was then known. Then--and here's the scary part so hold on to something--when omicron came around that statement was no longer true so they stopped saying it and said simply that the vax would help reduce hospitalization and death, which, Boo!, it does!

 

Now I hate to frighten you further, you might want to take a seat, but it could be that the upcoming next gen mucosal vaccines might again be able to offer a high efficacy against transmission. So what was true before, then wasn't true anymore, but might be true again. I hope that does not cause you mutation nightmares.

[Red Phoenix]

44 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

 

It is not improper for a news article to report on what experts expect based on what is known about the vaccine and about the new mutation. The word "expected" is said based upon the science, indicating that given these sets of circumstances of what the new mutation is and how the vaccine was designed, even if the new mutation is not exactly addressed within the design specs, it's close enough that the vaccine should be near enough as effective as it would have been against the prior mutation for which it was designed such that it will similarly decrease hospitalizations and deaths. It is not said as a wild guess. So I hope that helps to allay your fears about that.

 

That a large majority of population believes something wrong might not surprise me but you ought to show those statistics if they exist to prove your statement if you can. If there is such a misunderstanding, that might be by bad communication on the part of science. Though I just googled "do people think covid vaccine prevents getting covid?" and the entries I see don't say they prevent from getting covid. They properly mention reductions of hospitalization and death instead.

 

Perhaps some people think vaccinations "protect you from catching covid" because people like you misinform that there's supposedly been 24/7 propaganda of a lie at some earlier point when the fact is that before the omicron mutation which evades immunity, the original vaccinations did indeed have a high efficacy rate against getting infected at all. That was not propaganda. It was true at the time for that situation. I get that you are put into a state of panic when things change. You go into a high level of fear and so you are unable to cope well. But here, the science that vax conferred a high efficacy against getting covid before omicron (it was in the 90s % if I remember right) was true then. And so that's what they told people, the truth as it was then known. Then--and here's the scary part so hold on to something--when omicron came around that statement was no longer true so they stopped saying it and said simply that the vax would help reduce hospitalization and death, which, Boo!, it does!

 

Now I hate to frighten you further, you might want to take a seat, but it could be that the upcoming next gen mucosal vaccines might again be able to offer a high efficacy against transmission. So what was true before, then wasn't true anymore, but might be true again. I hope that does not cause you mutation nightmares.

 

Looks like you are obsessed with fear, and are projecting it on me.

~ I hope that helps to allay your fears about that.

~ I get that you are put into a state of panic when things change.

~ You go into a high level of fear and so you are unable to cope well.

~ ... and here's the scary part so hold on to something ...

~ Now I hate to frighten you further

~ I hope that does not cause you mutation nightmares.

 

As I wrote earlier, in response to your earlier nonsense. 

 

> A total misunderstanding. 

I do not fear the virus.  I have a robust immune system (never vaxxed, and never sick by the way) and if I got covid I didn't even notice it. 

But yes I fear for my loved ones that were deluded or coerced into taking the shots.

Those that are currently still lining up to get the latest jab to 'protect' themselves, are the fearful - and gullible - ones.

...

And no I am not a hermit, and never wear a face [mask] nor practice (a)social distancing, and go to gatherings in my village where large groups congregate. 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by stats
trolling reference removed

[eisfeld]

8 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Just have to trust nature to sort things out.

 

The more the 'white coats' fiddle in their labs, the more people will suffer the consequences.

 

Tne usual posters with the usual nonsense. The "white coats" as you call medical professionals and scientists have saved countless lives. You post is very ignorant and disrespectful.

 

What do you want? Stop all science and go back to living like cavemen?

[eisfeld]

16 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Looks like you are obsessed with fear, and are projecting it on me.

~ I hope that helps to allay your fears about that.

~ I get that you are put into a state of panic when things change.

~ You go into a high level of fear and so you are unable to cope well.

~ ... and here's the scary part so hold on to something ...

~ Now I hate to frighten you further

~ I hope that does not cause you mutation nightmares.

 

As I wrote earlier, in response to your earlier nonsense. 

 

Please don't use these shady underhanded tactics when posting.

 

18 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

I do not fear the virus.  I have a robust immune system (never vaxxed, and never sick by the way) and if I got covid I didn't even notice it. 

But yes I fear for my loved ones that were deluded or coerced into taking the shots.

Those that are currently still lining up to get the latest jab to 'protect' themselves, are the fearful - and gullible - ones.

 

I, for one, fear the misinformation and fear propagated against vaccines. It's not the first topic where you, "Owl sees all" and connda have partaken in exactly that. When a big number of posts from you guys had to be deleted, bad studies posted had been debunked, bad arguments refuted over and over... at what point does it "click"?

 

You opened the topic with your first post trying to put doubt into peoples minds that the vaccines would not help against the newest variant of the virus without explicitly saying it but that clearly is your agenda here. You didn't post any evidence for that. You are on a mission of sowing distrust and fear and that's not cool under normal circumstances but during times like these it's actively harmful.

[Eleftheros]

17 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

The "white coats" as you call medical professionals and scientists have saved countless lives.

"Countless" lives is about right, in that there is no firm way to know how many lives were saved, if indeed any were, or even if the count was negative.

 

Given that, it is foolish to simply hand out "respect" whenever we see a white coat who was involved in this matter.

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

"Countless" lives is about right, in that there is no firm way to know how many lives were saved, if indeed any were, or even if the count was negative.

 

Given that, it is foolish to simply hand out "respect" whenever we see a white coat who was involved in this matter.

There's no need to know the exact number and you know it. The fact that there is clear evidence of the Benefit-risk assessment then you can make an informed decision. 

 

That you state "if indeed any were, or even if the count was negative." confirms your ignorance to the facts.

[eisfeld]

12 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

"Countless" lives is about right, in that there is no firm way to know how many lives were saved, if indeed any were, or even if the count was negative.

 

Given that, it is foolish to simply hand out "respect" whenever we see a white coat who was involved in this matter.

 

That's like saying just because I can't put an exact number on how many lives antibiotics have saved we should not respect the people who invented and produced these medicines and because sometimes they might have sideeffects we should all be suspicious of them.

 

That's obviously illogical. In the real world you can't put exact numbers on pretty much anything as that would require total surveilance and control of anyone and everything. But to anyone without reality distortion field around them it is blatantly obvious that antibiotics have saved millions of lives. Same with vaccines.

 

If I have a watermelon next to a raisin I can pretty confidently say that the watermelon is much heavier than the raisin. And yet we have people that would ask me how many gram each weighs and when I answer "I don't know" they will tell me the raisin might be heavier than the watermelon.

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by eisfeld

[owl sees all]

1 hour ago, eisfeld said:

 

The usual posters with the usual nonsense. The "white coats" as you call medical professionals and scientists have saved countless lives. You post is very ignorant and disrespectful.

 

What do you want? Stop all science and go back to living like cavemen?

 

Medical professionals' who, on the whole, stick to a big pharma programme that originates from a theory. A theory, that was thrust on the world by rich, powerful people at the turn of the 1900s. Wanting to be even more rich. I do not agree with it.

 

Nature shows that the theory is not possible.  Of course, I don't want all science to stop. But medical science should be based on sound foundations; not nonsense. Nature would be a good place to start.

 

You are what many would called a non-thinker or sheep. Instead of inquiring why I have the opinions I have, you simply want to ridicule.

 

A little Voltaire quote::

 

"Doctors are men who prescribe medicines of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, to humans of whom they know nothing."

 

[Amethyst]

Two posts with numerous claims, all entirely unsourced, have been removed for contravening the forum's Community Standards.

 

"In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source."

 

 

 

[eisfeld]

12 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Medical professionals' who, on the whole, stick to a big pharma programme that originates from a theory. A theory, that was thrust on the world by rich, powerful people at the turn of the 1900s. Wanting to be even more rich. I do not agree with it.

 

Nature shows that the theory is not possible.  Of course, I don't want all science to stop. But medical science should be based on sound foundations; not nonsense. Nature would be a good place to start.

 

The only theory I see is your conspiracy theory. Medical science should be based on sound foundations? That's exactly what science means. And observation of nature is exactly where it started with. You seem to have a twisted understanding of what science is because you are asking it to be something that it already is. You see a few bad actors and think the whole field of pharma or science is rotten. It's not.

 

Quote

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

 

 

16 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

You are what many would called a non-thinker or sheep. Instead of inquiring why I have the opinions I have, you simply want to ridicule.

 

Funny because if anything I've been accused by some who know me of overthinking things at times. I've studied, got a degree, worked for decades in engineering and science roles and built pretty complex systems but apparently I'm a non-thinker and sheep. I guess I have to take your word for it. Or maybe not. I don't know or actually care why you have the opinions you have. But when people post unsubstantiated claims and illogical stuff then I will call it out and refute. I think it's disrespectful to the hard work that many scientists have put into all the knowledge we have accumulated. It's simply not ok.

 

28 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

"Doctors are men who prescribe medicines of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, to humans of whom they know nothing."

 

You do realize that that was more than two centuries ago? You do realize that Voltaire was a satirist? The doctors at that time had to work with very little scientific knowledge compared to current time. You might compare some of them to what nowerdays goes as "herbalists" or "alternative medicine" practitioners.

[sirineou]

13 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

Funny because if anything I've been accused by some who know me of overthinking things at times. I've studied, got a degree, worked for decades in engineering and science roles and built pretty complex systems but apparently I'm a non-thinker and sheep.

I hear this from ignorant people all the time , it makes them feel like they are special . they know something all of us don't know, People in power with a agenda are aware of that condition and they use it to create wedge issues and further their agenda. It is indeed they who are the sheep being lead by the nose. 

[thaicurious]

8 hours ago, thaicurious said:

 

It is not improper for a news article to report on what experts expect based on what is known about the vaccine and about the new mutation. The word "expected" is said based upon the science, indicating that given these sets of circumstances of what the new mutation is and how the vaccine was designed, even if the new mutation is not exactly addressed within the design specs, it's close enough that the vaccine should be near enough as effective as it would have been against the prior mutation for which it was designed such that it will similarly decrease hospitalizations and deaths. It is not said as a wild guess. So I hope that helps to allay your fears about that.

 

That a large majority of population believes something wrong might not surprise me but you ought to show those statistics if they exist to prove your statement if you can. If there is such a misunderstanding, that might be by bad communication on the part of science. Though I just googled "do people think covid vaccine prevents getting covid?" and the entries I see don't say they prevent from getting covid. They properly mention reductions of hospitalization and death instead.

 

Perhaps some people think vaccinations "protect you from catching covid" because people like you misinform that there's supposedly been 24/7 propaganda of a lie at some earlier point when the fact is that before the omicron mutation which evades immunity, the original vaccinations did indeed have a high efficacy rate against getting infected at all. That was not propaganda. It was true at the time for that situation. I get that you are put into a state of panic when things change. You go into a high level of fear and so you are unable to cope well. But here, the science that vax conferred a high efficacy against getting covid before omicron (it was in the 90s % if I remember right) was true then. And so that's what they told people, the truth as it was then known. Then--and here's the scary part so hold on to something--when omicron came around that statement was no longer true so they stopped saying it and said simply that the vax would help reduce hospitalization and death, which, Boo!, it does!

 

Now I hate to frighten you further, you might want to take a seat, but it could be that the upcoming next gen mucosal vaccines might again be able to offer a high efficacy against transmission. So what was true before, then wasn't true anymore, but might be true again. I hope that does not cause you mutation nightmares.

 

8 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Looks like you are obsessed with fear, and are projecting it on me.

~ I hope that helps to allay your fears about that.

~ I get that you are put into a state of panic when things change.

~ You go into a high level of fear and so you are unable to cope well.

~ ... and here's the scary part so hold on to something ...

~ Now I hate to frighten you further

~ I hope that does not cause you mutation nightmares.

 

As I wrote earlier, in response to your earlier nonsense. 

 

> A total misunderstanding. 

I do not fear the virus.  I have a robust immune system (never vaxxed, and never sick by the way) and if I got covid I didn't even notice it. 

But yes I fear for my loved ones that were deluded or coerced into taking the shots.

Those that are currently still lining up to get the latest jab to 'protect' themselves, are the fearful - and gullible - ones.

...

And no I am not a hermit, and never wear a face [mask] nor practice (a)social distancing, and go to gatherings in my village where large groups congregate. 

 

On the surface per your response you seem upset with me that perhaps you perceive what impression I report (what you seem to suggest I, what's the word, misinform) as if my observations of your behavior in dealing with medical efforts to keep up with mutations were not based in scientific observation, but upon, as you feebly put it, psychological projection, which is interesting. Do you know others who do such things as I did there? Perhaps it is not projection that should be your concern but reflection. And while you're looking in the mirror wondering if I did simply what you do, guess whose doings might cause others to risk contracting covid infection?

 

While having a look beyond your crying foul, the casual observer might notice you either just totally snowflaked there or used the ruse of feigning offense in subterfuge to cover your failure to address the critique of your misrepresentations of facts about the process of vaccinating against a changing virus. You might not call that your fear or aversion or inability to handle truth, but at least it does not make you feel guilt about risking your own life and the lives of others.

[Red Phoenix]

6 hours ago, thaicurious said:

 

On the surface per your response you seem upset with me that perhaps you perceive what impression I report (what you seem to suggest I, what's the word, misinform) as if my observations of your behavior in dealing with medical efforts to keep up with mutations were not based in scientific observation, but upon, as you feebly put it, psychological projection, which is interesting. Do you know others who do such things as I did there? Perhaps it is not projection that should be your concern but reflection. And while you're looking in the mirror wondering if I did simply what you do, guess whose doings might cause others to risk contracting covid infection?

 

While having a look beyond your crying foul, the casual observer might notice you either just totally snowflaked there or used the ruse of feigning offense in subterfuge to cover your failure to address the critique of your misrepresentations of facts about the process of vaccinating against a changing virus. You might not call that your fear or aversion or inability to handle truth, but at least it does not make you feel guilt about risking your own life and the lives of others.

~

This thread is not about me.

The topic is about the rapidly mutating covid-variants, and the fact that the landscape of circulating variants did change significantly by the time the new updated covid-vaccines are rolled out. 

The FDA was proud to announce that the new updated booster which they approved mid September was targetting the XBB 1.5 variant, which was the dominant variant end of July, but which in mean time has become almost extinct.  And the currently dominant variant HV.1 was insignificant at that time. 

Source: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-updated-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-better-protect-against-currently-circulating

Source: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions

Now of course, the experts 'expect' that the current booster 'may' still provide some protection against death and hospitalization when catching covid.  That the vaccine does NOT protect against catching covid in the first place should now be common knowledge (although when I talk with people about it many did not get that message), and it is most probably the main reason why the booster-uptake is 'abysmally' low.

But by all means if you believe that the risk/benefit for taking the current booster is positive for you, do take the jab. 

Just be aware that the mainstream media are 'somewhat' biased in touting these wonder-products...   

[thaicurious]

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

This thread is not about me.

The topic is about the rapidly mutating covid-variants, and the fact that the landscape of circulating variants did change significantly by the time the new updated covid-vaccines are rolled out. 

The FDA was proud to announce that the new updated booster which they approved mid September was targetting the XBB 1.5 variant, which was the dominant variant end of July, but which in mean time has become almost extinct.  And the currently dominant variant HV.1 was insignificant at that time. 

Source: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-updated-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-better-protect-against-currently-circulating

Source: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions

Now of course, the experts 'expect' that the current booster 'may' still provide some protection against death and hospitalization when catching covid.  That the vaccine does NOT protect against catching covid in the first place should now be common knowledge (although when I talk with people about it many did not get that message), and it is most probably the main reason why the booster-uptake is 'abysmally' low.

But by all means if you believe that the risk/benefit for taking the current booster is positive for you, do take the jab. 

Just be aware that the mainstream media are 'somewhat' biased in touting these wonder-products...   

When you proffered the subject not simply as info on a new variant with respect to boosters but inserted instead in the original post your personal--some might say political--interpretation about what science says of vaccinating against an evolving virus, you yourself made your thread subjectively also about you and your interpretations and also about your motives for so describing, rather than simply being about an objective scientific topic alone. So if then saying "this thread is not about me" wasn't meant generally but directed towards the post to which you replied, please try not to blame me for what you did from the get go. Thanx, as I've no control over your activity.

 

Your apparent concern over my understanding of media is appreciated. Fear not, I'll manage.

 

To the objective topic of the science of immunology, scientists can say what they've said about the latest booster with respect to the latest variant because these mutations, outside--so far--of the game changer omicron, have been enough alike that their "expecteds" are not simple guesswork, but based on knowns. To say a hurricane is expected to cause damage isn't just throwing a guess of expectedness out there, even though the weatherman can't know beforehand just what winds will hit what structures. But unless, like omicron, the hurricane hasn't mutated into a friendly volcano, that doesn't make it inaccurate or unhelpful to say damage is to be expected.

[Red Phoenix]

12 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

When you proffered the subject not simply as info on a new variant with respect to boosters but inserted instead in the original post your personal--some might say political--interpretation about what science says of vaccinating against an evolving virus, you yourself made your thread subjectively also about you and your interpretations and also about your motives for so describing, rather than simply being about an objective scientific topic alone. So if then saying "this thread is not about me" wasn't meant generally but directed towards the post to which you replied, please try not to blame me for what you did from the get go. Thanx, as I've no control over your activity.

 

Your apparent concern over my understanding of media is appreciated. Fear not, I'll manage.

 

To the objective topic of the science of immunology, scientists can say what they've said about the latest booster with respect to the latest variant because these mutations, outside--so far--of the game changer omicron, have been enough alike that their "expecteds" are not simple guesswork, but based on knowns. To say a hurricane is expected to cause damage isn't just throwing a guess of expectedness out there, even though the weatherman can't know beforehand just what winds will hit what structures. But unless, like omicron, the hurricane hasn't mutated into a friendly volcano, that doesn't make it inaccurate or unhelpful to say damage is to be expected.

~

Read my post > it's not an 'interpretation' or 'opinion' but simply a factual observation based on the CDC provided table. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

"Since HV.1 is similar to other, existing Omicron-related subvariants, the U.S.’s COVID tools will likely be equally effective against it, experts agreed.

...

[Thomas Russo, MD, SUNY distinguished professor and chief of the division of infectious diseases at the Jacobs School of Medicine at the University at Buffalo] explained that while updated vaccines are “imperfect” when it comes to preventing infections, that doesn’t mean they don’t significantly help keep people safe.

 

"We’re still learning about this, to be clear,” said Russo. ... If you get the updated vaccine, it’s in the Omicron family, and it’s predicted that that will afford good protection.”

 

https://www.health.com/hv1-variant-covid-19-8364827

 

Edited November 3, 2023 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[thaicurious]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

Read my post > it's not an 'interpretation' or 'opinion' but simply a factual observation based on the CDC provided table. 

Nice try attempting to dissect an issue out of its context. But your having had omitted from your OP the good info provided soon thereafter by the TallGuyJohn poster which clarifies why the newest boosters are thought adequate for the even newer variant and then your mocking that science hardly seems solid basis for you to claim motive or method of mere observation sans interpretation.

[Red Phoenix]

26 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Nice try attempting to dissect an issue out of its context. But your having had omitted from your OP the good info provided soon thereafter by the TallGuyJohn poster which clarifies why the newest boosters are thought adequate for the even newer variant and then your mocking that science hardly seems solid basis for you to claim motive or method of mere observation sans interpretation.

~

Totally disingenuous response.

When starting a thread on the Covid-19 Sub-forum AseanNow, the requirement is that your opening post should ONLY contain factual information from an approved source.  Also it should be limited to max 3 phrases. 

So I textually quoted and referenced both the latest CDC report and the FDA's website.

And in my comment I simply mentioned the most relevant facts from the CDC provided figures re currently circulating covid-variants.

= = =

In the discussion that ensued, I then provided my personal stance and opinion on the matter.

This will be my final response to your misplaced and false allegations, as your posts are nothing more than a personal attack.

[eisfeld]

7 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Now of course, the experts 'expect' that the current booster 'may' still provide some protection against death and hospitalization when catching covid.  That the vaccine does NOT protect against catching covid in the first place should now be common knowledge (although when I talk with people about it many did not get that message), and it is most probably the main reason why the booster-uptake is 'abysmally' low.

But by all means if you believe that the risk/benefit for taking the current booster is positive for you, do take the jab. 

Just be aware that the mainstream media are 'somewhat' biased in touting these wonder-products..

 

Do you have any reliable evidence that the expert expectations are wrong? That the current updated vaccines will be useless against the now dominant strains? Because if not then you are just spreading FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

 

You are wrong in stating that the vaccines cannot prevent you from "catching covid". By now you should know that Covid-19 is the disease and SARS-CoV-2 is the virus. A vaccine - not just the covid ones but any - can never prevent you from catching the virus because it's not like it creates a perfect seal ouround your body where nothing can enter you. What they can prevent is you catching the diseases because your immune system is prepared. Is it a 100% protection? No. But that also should be known by now in 2023.

[MrJ2U]

On 11/1/2023 at 11:22 PM, connda said:

irrational fear.

Nobody is fearful.

 

It's normal to report on a virus that has caused so many deaths.

 

Perhaps if it bothers you read a comic book or something else that hasn't news of the world.

 

 

[thaicurious]

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

Totally disingenuous response.

When starting a thread on the Covid-19 Sub-forum AseanNow, the requirement is that your opening post should ONLY contain factual information from an approved source.  Also it should be limited to max 3 phrases. 

So I textually quoted and referenced both the latest CDC report and the FDA's website.

And in my comment I simply mentioned the most relevant facts from the CDC provided figures re currently circulating covid-variants.

= = =

In the discussion that ensued, I then provided my personal stance and opinion on the matter.

This will be my final response to your misplaced and false allegations, as your posts are nothing more than a personal attack.

There's been nothing disingenuous about my posts. Perhaps you are misusing the word? Nor have I falsely alleged but simply called out what was evident.

 

It is irrelevant into which post you first opined. I might have misspoke re: OP, as who remembers precisely each thing said everywhere from a page ago, but good luck diverting now with that. You can try to parse it but its all a parcel. If your motive wasn't clear on first post, you've certainly clarified it since.

 

Countering your opinion even while critiquing methods obvious in your argumentations is not personal attack but merely counterargument while acknowledging those methods. That you decide to use that to stomp your feet and run off is your prerogative.